I have submitted twice, but both were rejected by this journal and then accepted by Habitat International. The manuscript of the same group was also rejected by it and then accepted by Cities. Everyone can judge the difficulty. It is very difficult to be accepted by this journal.

(5) Thank | 中型社会主义路灯

2018.9.20 Submitted; 2018.12.3 Review decision returned, rejection. One of the reviewers did not see the description of the experiment process clearly and subjectively inferred the experiment went wrong, resulting in the rejection of the manuscript. This journal has two main research directions, one is landscape ecology, and the other is geography. There are many interesting researches in the geography category; the research quality of the landscape ecology category is similar to that of Landscape Ecology, which is quite high, but not top-notch (there is a big gap with journals like Ecology). “The journal is good, but there is no good editor to handle ecological manuscripts”, my instructor commented on this journal.

(12) Thank | ahaha233

Submitted in December 2018 and revision requested in March 2019. Of the three reviewers, the first two gave very positive review comments, also wrote detailed long-form suggestions or questions. The third reviewer’s comments consisted of only three paragraphs, and each paragraph was negative. Obviously, he was just superficially finding faults. And he was not professional than the other two reviewers who commented on the specific content and method of the review. The editor’s letter was very positive which wrote that “While I describe these as major revisions, I see the requested changes as all very "doable"”. In June 2019, the revised manuscript was submitted and it was accepted in two days. I felt it is very odd. It was even not sent to review. Then it was revised back and forth a few rounds. Sent to production after two days later.

(12) Thank | 昵称已被占用

The submission process took one-and-a-half years. The review status was overhaul, minor repair, minor repair, overhaul (there was an editor change during the period), minor repair, and finally, rejection of the manuscript. Wei-Ning Xiang’s rejection comments are untenable. We have already published three or four papers in other SCI journals. They said that our language is unqualified, yet we invited foreign English-speaking colleagues to review it many times. These two reasons are untenable. We wrote an email to the editorial department and we did not get a positive response. This submission process wasted a lot of time and effort. I feel that this journal is very famous in the field, and the editor is very highly regarded. Yet the review cycle was delayed! I think such a journal is worthy of all of us thinking about whether we should continue to support it! There are still many good journals in the field.

(10) Thank | zhyu@ign.ku.dk

Don't waste what has been submitted.

(0) Thank | Hirze

May I ask what stage you are currently in, and how long it typically takes for a decision to be under review after the initial stage?

(0) Thank | xiaonan152

Do not let down what has been invested

(0) Thank | Luuuo

2024-6-1 submitted to journal
2024-6-4 with editor
2024-6-11 Reject
Does not fit journal scope

(0) Thank | kantanna

I had three reviewers:
The first one was relatively positive, very careful in reviewing, even noticed the typos, basically asked for minor revisions and gave a few suggestions;
The second one was neutral, basically asked for major revisions and gave a few comments;
The third one nitpicked on various aspects, criticized the title, lack of innovation, and provided various reasons, directly recommending rejection.
Finally rejected. I emailed the editor explaining the situation, also told him that I will revise according to the reviewers' comments, and explained the revision plan, hoping for a chance to resubmit. However, the editor replied that since I did not have the support of all the reviewers, they could not change the decision to reject.
In this case, can I still resubmit?

(0) Thank | Gimu

There is a high chance of getting rehired after resubmission. In our case, after major revisions were made and resubmitted, we were accepted after only minor revisions, with the same reviewer as before

(0) Thank | Lotiss

The translation of the text into English is: 

In a similar situation as mine, I withdrew and resubmitted. After resubmission, it still went through three reviewers and took over six months. However, it came back as a major revision and was accepted directly after the changes were made. From the first submission to the final acceptance, it took nearly two years.

(0) Thank | xixi0428

Special thanks to Weiqi Zhou for editing, very efficient and responsible!

(0) Thank | 丢味

08.23 submit
09.03 with editor
09.10 under review
10.27 major revision
12.13 with editor
12.17 under review
02.02 under review, updated time (with editor rejection)
04.17 Accepted

(0) Thank | 丢味

I have experienced being rejected and resubmitting, but after making revisions for a month and sending it back, the editor rejected it again without providing specific reasons.

(0) Thank | 无敌破坏汪

The initial review took 4 months and resulted in rejection with the option to resubmit. Both the editor and reviewers acknowledged the presence of innovation but requested significant revisions. The resubmission must include a revision statement. I would like to ask if any colleagues have encountered this situation with the journal and if the chances of acceptance are higher after making the suggested revisions and resubmitting.

(0) Thank | gyj0619

After years of conducting interdisciplinary research, the study was innovative and required a significant amount of work. Two reviewers provided detailed feedback, greatly improving the overall quality of the article. The editing process was rigorous. Many additional experiments and arguments were added during the later stages, resulting in a year-long acceptance process. We hope that LANDUP, as a top journal in the field of urban research, continues to thrive and its impact factor continues to rise.

(20) Thank | 公里之花

It took nine months to complete the review process. The initial review took three months, the second review took one and a half months, and the final review took one month. The remaining time was spent in the hands of the editor. Overall, the speed was relatively slow, especially the speed at which the editor processed the manuscripts, which usually took at least half a month. However, the industry recognition is high, so it was worth the time spent. I hope to have 1-2 more LANDUP papers during my doctoral period.

(2) Thank | 无敌破坏汪

First review took 6 months, with two reviewers providing minor and major revisions respectively. The editor suggested major revisions, and I am very happy to receive the revised manuscript back after 20 days. The two reviewers provided many excellent suggestions that helped improve the paper. Thank you to both reviewers! Thank you to editor Zhou Weiqi! I am grateful! I will continue to work hard in the future and strive for more opportunities to publish in LANDUP!

(7) Thank | vv亚

No, I am a researcher in the field of remote sensing.

(16) Thank | 遥感人

Are you referring to the recent publication on the increased flood risk caused by changes in land use in China over the past 40 years?

(0) Thank | 雨落凡尘

The country with the highest acceptance rate for submissions is the United States, not China, as you may already know. At the same time, the annual publication volume is quite conservative, with just over 100 articles, making it difficult to ensure high quality.

(8) Thank | 遥感人

Rejected by the Nature sub-journal, the work was done on a national scale, with a large amount of data and workload. It took four months from submission to acceptance.

(27) Thank | 遥感人

It has been 3 months, the outcome is unknown, and I am anxious.

(2) Thank | 黄里山人

After 10 months of submission, the first trial was rejected.The editor is Glenn Stewart.The first is that the 10-month first-instance cycle is super long.I was urged once in 7-8 months, and the reply was waiting for the last reviewer.A rejection letter was received at 10 months with 3 reviewers' comments.The first reviewer gave 16 comments.In general, it should be positive. Suggestions include: abstract is not refined, introduction is not comprehensive enough, statistical analysis software version is wrong, refs is a bit old.Wonderful is the second reviewer, this singularly wrote 33 words.The third is a little stronger, and I wrote 53 words.10 months waiting, come to nothing.Landscape and Urban Planning is known as the top journal of the industry. From our experience, this journal, from editors to reviewers, can't talk about anything, not to be professional.Students who want to contribute, be careful, be careful.

(17) Thank | 资深投稿人

17Submission in September, external audit in November, now at the end of March, 18, or external audit.When reading articles published in journals, from submission to publication, there are very few less than 6 months, and more than 9 months.Such a journal, still do not select well.

(2) Thank | gy